People vs. Deopante

G.R. No. 102772 (October 30, 1996)

Facts

On January 10, 1991, at approximately 9:00 PM, Dante Deopante was conversing with his friend Renato Molina on Alkalde Jose Street in Pasig, Metro Manila. They noticed Rogelio Deopante, the accused, approaching them while drawing an open fan knife (balisong) from his back pocket. Sensing imminent danger, Molina warned Dante to flee. As Dante ran, Rogelio pursued him, eventually overpowering him at a nearby basketball court. The two grappled on the ground, during which Rogelio stabbed Dante twice with the fan knife, inflicting mortal wounds. After the attack, Rogelio fled the scene, while bystanders rushed Dante to the Rizal Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

The police were alerted to the stabbing incident and, upon investigation, learned that Rogelio was the assailant. Patrolman Crispin Pio, who responded to the call, later found Rogelio at his home and invited him to the police station for questioning. During this encounter, a 10-inch fan knife was recovered from Rogelio, which was sent for forensic examination. An autopsy revealed that Dante sustained seven wounds, two of which were fatal stab wounds.

The prosecution presented six witnesses, including medical personnel and eyewitnesses who testified about the events leading to the stabbing. Notably, barangay captain Alfonso Reyes testified that Dante had previously reported threats against him by Rogelio.

In contrast, the defense claimed that Rogelio acted in self-defense. Rogelio, along with two witnesses, testified that Dante had attacked him first, prompting a struggle during which Rogelio allegedly wrested a knife from Dante. Rogelio also claimed to have sustained injuries during the altercation.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in considering the barangay logbook entry as evidence of evident premeditation.
2. Whether the trial court failed to recognize the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and Rogelio's physical condition.
3. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the claim of self-defense.
4. Whether the trial court properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses.
5. Whether the trial court should have applied Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code regarding incomplete self-defense.

Arguments

Prosecution:

• The prosecution argued that Rogelio acted with evident premeditation, as evidenced by the prior threats reported by Dante to the barangay captain and the subsequent attack.
• The prosecution maintained that Rogelio's actions were deliberate and that he had the opportunity to refrain from the attack but chose to pursue and stab Dante.
• Eyewitness testimonies corroborated the prosecution's narrative, indicating that Rogelio was the aggressor.

Defense:

• The defense contended that Rogelio acted in self-defense, asserting that Dante attacked him first, and that he only stabbed Dante in response to the aggression.
• The defense argued that Rogelio's physical condition (having a severed left hand) limited his ability to commit the crime with intent to kill.
• The defense also claimed that Rogelio voluntarily surrendered to the police, which should be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning

The trial court found Rogelio guilty of murder, emphasizing the presence of evident premeditation. The court outlined the necessary elements for establishing evident premeditation, which were satisfied by the evidence presented, including the prior threats made by Rogelio and the eyewitness accounts of the attack.

1. Evident Premeditation: The court ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of evident premeditation, noting that Rogelio had time to reflect on his actions before the attack. The testimony of the barangay captain and the eyewitnesses supported this finding.

2. Voluntary Surrender and Physical Condition: The court rejected the claim of voluntary surrender, stating that Rogelio did not voluntarily present himself to the authorities but was instead taken by the police. The court also found that Rogelio's physical condition did not impede his ability to commit the crime, as he was able to wield the knife effectively during the attack.

3. Self-Defense: The court dismissed the self-defense claim, stating that Rogelio failed to prove unlawful aggression by Dante. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were deemed credible and consistent, while Rogelio's account was self-serving and lacked corroboration.

4. Credibility of Witnesses: The court upheld the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, finding no reason to disturb its conclusions. The eyewitnesses were deemed reliable, and their accounts were consistent with the physical evidence.

5. Incomplete Self-Defense: The court clarified that Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when some conditions for self-defense are met. Since Rogelio was found to be the aggressor, the provision was not applicable.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, sentencing Rogelio to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity to Dante's heirs.

Significant Legal Principles Established

• The elements of evident premeditation must be clearly established through evidence of prior threats and the opportunity to reflect before committing the crime.
• The criteria for voluntary surrender require a spontaneous and unconditional submission to authorities, which was not present in this case.
• The burden of proof for self-defense shifts to the accused once they admit to the killing, necessitating clear evidence of unlawful aggression by the victim.
• The credibility of witnesses is primarily assessed by the trial court, and its findings are given great weight on appeal.